RealGun
Member
Neither gun is truly versatile unless it is big enough to handle the full range of ammo. There is nothing fun about shooting full spec ammo in a smaller frame or lightweight alloy gun.
357 vs 44 for versatility
- Thread starter D.B. Cooper
- Start date
- Status
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
IMHO, the best thing about a .357 is that it makes a really nice .38Spl. 
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,887
For the discussion at hand, 357mag vs. 44mag, splitting hairs between the 45 and 44 is largely moot. Arguing which has more horses, a Peterbilt or a Volvo, when a guy is asking whether he should buy a semi-tractor or a pick-up truck doesn't really make sense...
Crowman
Member
7-round L-Frame, 8-round N-Frame 38/357 vs. 5-Round, 6-Round 44. Ya already have one, why not add the other...just sayin...
OP
OP
D.B. Cooper
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2016
- Messages
- 4,396
The funniest thing about threads like these (which is better, which should I buy) is how many people inevitably say "both."
I love it.
Wish my girlfriend understood LOL. =)
Perhaps I asked the wrong question. Perhaps I should have asked "Since I already have a lever gun in both 44 and 357, but only have a revolver in 44, should I just go buy a 357 revolver?" =) Maybe that's how I should be looking at this.
HEYYYYYY... "Since I already have a revolver in 32-20, but I don't have a lever gun in 32-20... but I have lever guns for my other revolvers...should I buy a lever gun in 32-20?"
I'm starting to like this logic. I always overthink things.
I love it.
Wish my girlfriend understood LOL. =)
Perhaps I asked the wrong question. Perhaps I should have asked "Since I already have a lever gun in both 44 and 357, but only have a revolver in 44, should I just go buy a 357 revolver?" =) Maybe that's how I should be looking at this.
HEYYYYYY... "Since I already have a revolver in 32-20, but I don't have a lever gun in 32-20... but I have lever guns for my other revolvers...should I buy a lever gun in 32-20?"
I'm starting to like this logic. I always overthink things.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
I will say that if you are mostly interested in the .38Spl, it's advisable to get yourself one. For me, there are very few guns more pleasurable to shoot than a nice pencil barrel model 14.
Kendal Black
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,647
Well, in that light, quite good .357 revolvers are available that are lighter, more compact and handier than a .44 Mag revolver. That is what would tip my decision toward yes, get a .357. Get something handy to carry around, not a huge gun, and enjoy the convenience. That is the best justification I can think of for adding a .357 revolver to your battery.
Any versatility advantages of the .357 are on the low end of the power scale, for there are lots of fine low-powered .38 Spl loads, and equivalent handloads in magnum cases if you like.
AJB2
Member
IMHO for hunting I'd prefer the 44 . Even though I've killed more than a few deer & hogs with a 357 I consider it marginal . The only thing the 357 excels at is discouraging two - legged varmits while the 44 is just too much unless downloaded to 44 special levels . For defensive use a good DA revolver in 357 , for field work a SA revolver in either caliber would work .
CajunBass
Member
I can't think of a single good reason to NOT buy a 357.
I wouldn't buy one smaller than a K-frame, but then I wouldn't buy a revolver smaller than a K-frame anyway.
Or to really muddy the waters, get yourself a 41 Magnum, then you'll need a 41 Magnum carbine.
Well bummer.....
Me either.
Heh.
Wbblazer90
Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2017
- Messages
- 36
I'm speaking of the caliber, not the platform. A smith and Wesson revolver chambered in .357 magnum or 44 magnum CAN handle any load if kept within SAAMI specifications. I don't know what you mean by the gun not being able to handle it.
Damon555
Member
Yeah, if you don't already have a 357 you might as well just get one......they ain't gonna get any cheaper!......I'd get a GP100 or 586/686
Wbblazer90
Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2017
- Messages
- 36
Sw 686, ruger sp101, gp100 are fine .357 mag revolvers and are fun to shoot.
RealGun
Member
I tried that logic and found there is no real relationship between the guns that fire the same cartridge, unless you realistically want to be tramping around carrying both and feel that sharing ammo between then is imperative. Owning a .357 rifle then does not necessarily compel you to match it with a revolver. Get the revolver for its own sake. I would certainly want at least one .357 but would recommend that the first one be a full sized gun, well suited to handle the full range of the ammo.
Charlie98
Member
.
Or to really muddy the waters, get yourself a 41 Magnum, then you'll need a 41 Magnum carbine.
SHHHHHHH! Keep talking like that and the secret will get out!
Charlie98
Member
I agree... They are two different platforms firing the same ammunition, not necessarily carried or used at the same time. A .41 revolver, for example, has it's own merits vs a .41 carbine, they can be viewed exclusively. In a place where ammo and components might be hard to come by, component commonality between 2 or more firearms might be an advantage, even if you load them differently... as I do. My pistol gets Unique loads, but the rifle, to take advantage of the longer barrel, gets something slower like IMR4227 or W296, all other components being the same.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
That depends on what it is. If we're talking N or L frame .357's then yes. However, N-frames can't handle the full range of .44Mag loads. Not only do the guns shoot loose with any decent quantity of full pressure loads but the cylinder is not long enough for some loads. Same for K-frame .357's.
I don't think anyone wants to shoot a J-frame .357 enough to loosen it up.
OP
OP
D.B. Cooper
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2016
- Messages
- 4,396
I think, when folks say this, ("big enough to handle the full range of ammo") they are referring to the ability to comfortably shoot the full range (i.e. full power) ammo. I wouldn't want to shoot 180 grain bear loads out of Ruger LCRx.
OP
OP
D.B. Cooper
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2016
- Messages
- 4,396
Personally, I'm not much of a fan of the GP100. I also dislike the new Smiths with the lock. Pre-lock Smiths carry a hefty price tag. For me I think it would be a Security Six. (I had one decades ago and was well pleased with it.)
That said, if a very good S&W 19 fell on my head at a good price (around $600 - which isn't going to happen) I wouldn't hesitate.
The other part of that is I prefer stainless steel in a handgun. Which is something of a dichotomy for me as, for nearly every other gun I own, they are all vintage guns made from wood and blued steel.
OP
OP
D.B. Cooper
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2016
- Messages
- 4,396
Interesting. My exact thought was that ammo interchangeability is the best reason to match rifles and handguns. Admittedly, for my purposes, 44 magnum gets the nod here, too, over the 357, as the same 305 grain bear loads in my revolver will also do a number on a moose under 100 yrds.
Charlie98
Member
No; a steady diet of what I call full-house Magnum loads in an N-frame Smith will, quite literally, wear it out. I have done so with my brother's late '70's era Smith 57; in the Early Days of reloading, he and I pushed the envelope with handloads in the .41, and unfortunately, it really needs a trip back to S&W for a tune and retime. Some revolvers can take heavy loads better... a Dan Wesson in particular, but the Rugers, too. Having said that, any pistol fed a constant diet of maximum loads will eventually succumb.
GunnyUSMC
Member
There is a very nice 4" Mod 19 at the local Pawn shop for $625
RealGun
Member
YMMV but I learned quickly not to shoot any higher end loads in my model 19-4. As a K-frame, it hurts my hand with anything too powerful. I am not a wuss though but just prefer the big bangers in the larger guns. There is a well recognized history that the 19 was not intended for a routine diet of 357.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
